Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Thanks for the summary TomSawyer, it clears up a lot of the questions I had.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Why would people who understand the simple facts of evolution oppose the law? I can see why so-called "social Darwinists" (who tend towards the conservative) might oppose it, i.e. those who tend to think "I've got mine, and if you don't, too bad - survival of the fittest and all that" might wonder why we're bothering to help more vulnerable people. Other than that, I can't fathom what you're even getting at.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Translation: Darwinists in this usage are atheists and atheists couldn't possibly care about anyone.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I still don't get how troglodytes wouldn't want other cavemen happy and healthy.
Originally Posted By fkurucz What remains a tremendous mystery to me is how Protestant Fundamentalists get into a lather over biological Darwinism but don't have a problem with Social Darwinism.
Originally Posted By mrkthompsn If one adopts the rule of Darwinism, then all of biology falls under it - including humans. Why go through great lengths to care for the lame and the sick? Why would a Darwinist not promote the strong of the species? Pick a premise.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>Why go through great lengths to care for the lame and the sick?<< Because people like you are going to such great lengths to NOT take care of them.
Originally Posted By mele You think you're winning arguments like this one and your "if you don't believe in God, then the United States doesn't exist" stuff...but you're not. Survival isn't just about selfishness. You can be the fittest to survive and still help others. Sometimes a very real part of survival is forming bonds with others, thus making yourself and your environment stronger. It's not an either/or situation.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <What remains a tremendous mystery to me is how Protestant Fundamentalists get into a lather over biological Darwinism but don't have a problem with Social Darwinism.> Exactly. "Social Darwinism" tends to be promoted by conservatives, and actually has precious little to do with evolution. Even if you insist that it does, anything but the most shallow look at it will reveal that one of the reasons humans (as mele points out) aren't just slightly more sophisticated apes still living in the jungle, is precisely because we DO cooperate and do things together as a society that we could never achieve on our own.
Originally Posted By gurgitoy2 Right? The "Darwinism" they attach to it wasn't even propagated by him...just attributed to him falsely.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I had to look that one up, but here's what I found in Urban Dictionary: " Refers to having a pointless debate with somebody utterly ignorant of the subject matter, but standing on a dogmatic position that cannot be moved with any amount of education or logic, but who always proclaims victory. Origin: "Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory." -- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer (From an Amazon.com book review)" In other words... yeah.
Originally Posted By TMI "Why would a Darwinist not promote the strong of the species?" Because being a "Darwinist" doesn't mean you promote it, just that you understand it.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
